Atkins was right

Well, because we have the teeth and digestive system of omnivores. We're
neither pure meat eaters (intestine is too long, molars are not sharp) nor
pure vegetable eaters (instestine is too short, front teeth would be
useless, we cannot digest fibers). If anything, we are natural fruit eaters,
like the monkeys we descend from : we have prehensile hands (great to grab
fruits), very strong back and abdominal muscles (need that to climb trees),
one of the best color vision of the animal real and one of the very few
animals not to be daltonian (which is a huge plus to spot unmoving silent
colorfull fruits in the foliage), vision is our best sense, an appetance for
sugar (mainly found in high quantity in fruits in the natural state), a
strong dislike for bitter taste (usually toxic fruits). However, fruit
eating is no longer the option as the unique diet for us, because it's not
enough to sustain our huge brain and our high metabolism body - that's why
we grew into omnivores. The added energy from fats and proteins allowed our
brain to grow to its full size, and fueled our higher metabolism (standing
upright is not exactly energy saving - uses a large amount of it to maintain
even static position and you need to built up a lot of muscle mass). Some of
our earlier ancestors, like australopithecus, were still fully vegetarian.

As for our ancestors being bread eaters, you might do whatever you want, but
you can't change the documented historical proofs.
During the middle ages, the diet was mainly bread and cereals. The protein
sources were the cereals and cheese and eggs. Fish was rarely eaten, except
in maritime areas, which just makes sense given the transportation time back
them. Meat was also rare, because it's pointless to kill an extremelly
expensive animals which can give milk or eggs daily just to eat meat once.
Hunting was not an option either, because poaching was punished by death
penalty - again, a high price for a once in a lifetime meal.
But even with this diet, these middle-age ancestors did much better than our
wonderful cavemen ancestors. In the middle-ages, your only became an old man
in your late thirties. In the late prehistory (10,000BC) this was actually
your whole life expectancy (34 for men, 29 for women) and agriculture was
already invented, so it was not meat all day long. Life expectancy for
neanderthal was around 29 years. Before that, it actually tended to be
longer, not because of the food, but because there were no settlements and
that meant less chance of a disease killing dozens of people at once.

Are you one of these people who actually believe in the neanderthal fad
diet? Why would anyone engage in a diet that 1) is not even the one
neanderthal ate (that would be a lot more fat and a lot less proteins) 2)
caused you to be an old man by the end of your twenties.

"jk" wrote in message
et...
As for your ancestors being bread eaters..... Why don't we have
teeth
like a cow or horse? Not to mention 2 stomachs to help digest grasses.
Surely over millions of years of evolution, the healthier veggies would
have
adapted much better and survived to mate more often. Looks to me like we
are
designed to be carnivores. Born to eat meat, and love every minute of it.

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:35:20 GMT, "jk" wrote:

As for your ancestors being bread eaters..... Why don't we have teeth
like a cow or horse? Not to mention 2 stomachs to help digest grasses.
Surely over millions of years of evolution, the healthier veggies would have
adapted much better and survived to mate more often. Looks to me like we are
designed to be carnivores. Born to eat meat, and love every minute of it.

If you seriously look at your teeth, you have some cutters, some
grinders. Your mouth is the mouth of an omivore, somewhere between
the cow, and the lion. True we weren't designed to eat grass, but we
handle fruit, and vegetables just fine. If you want to eat only meat,
you go ahead, I'm going to have some broccolli, berries, and nuts with
mine. :-)

Karen Rodgers

**********
Windbourne, folk singers of the future
http://www.windbourne.com/
remove "_rice_" from my email address
**********

I read your posts with regular interest and looking forward to your
low-cal vs low-carb data.

Pat

Doug Lerner wrote in message ...
My big question is not whether Atkins was right or not in general - I
believe he was, about the benefits of low-carbing. My question is whether he
was right about there being a "metabolic advantage".

In about another week I'll have good comparitive low-cal vs low-carb data
(from myself) and will be able to report more on this.

doug

On 4/8/04 10:24 PM, in article ,
"Bob in CT" wrote:

In light of all the trolls, I thought I'd throw some "anti-troll" text out
for discussion:

Regardless of whether or not studies indicate that low carb is right or
wrong, I have lost about 50 pounds, have improved my HDL, triglycerides,
and total cholesterol/HDL ratio, am exercising more than I ever have, and
feel great. I feel much better now than I did on low fat, which I ate for
about 20 years. Low carb has helped my blood sugar control immensely.

So I believe Atkins was and is right and you trolls can quit
proselytizing: you can spew out all the studies you want, but you're not
changing my mind.

Lictor burbled across the ether:
"Jean Staffen" wrote in message
...
And how is eating like our
ancestors ate an unhealthy diet? It is obvious you are talking
through your arse and haven't read the book or practiced the diet at
all. Thanks, I feel better now.

Which ancestors are you talking about? Mine used to eat 1-1.5kg of
bread a day. Unless you're not of European descent or your ancestors
happened to be the lucky few in the nobility (in which case they
added a lot of meat to their bread), I doubt your ancestors where
eating anything different. Unless you're speaking of ancestors from
even further ago? Like before the invention of agriculture. If so,
it's hard to say if they were eating healthy. Dying at 18-25 on
average doesn't leave much time for unhealthy food to kill you.

You've got proof of that age of death? Most statistics like that are an
average that combines children before the age of two with everybody else
and that always drags the average way off. The environment before
modern food and medicine was difficult on the young, but if you could
survive past 2 your chances of living to a ripe old age of 65-80 was
excellent, even in the ice age.

The development of agriculture allowed more people to be born but
drastically reduced their health and life span. Once cities started
developing (agriculture triggered the development of cities as grain
storage and protection) the average adult life span dropped to 45-50 and
stayed there for those that ate mostly grain. There are a lot of
factors involved, including excercize and germ/virus exposure but diet
also played a big part.

We evolved to eat in a certain type of environment, and our bodies are
still functioning as if they were in that envirnment-- we have not
changed in 100 thousand years. Yet our environment has. Modern
agriculture has had centuries to develop bigger sweeter grains, veggies
and fruits. Not natural at all. Common sense tells us to cut back on
these unnaturally high carb foods for more natural balance.
--
revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June
2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please
There's no plate like chrome, there's no plate like chrome...

Actually, I'm Cherokee and my ancestors ate a varied, healthy diet. We did
pretty well until White Eyes arrived. You all want to have some fun with
that for awhile :-)


"jk" wrote in message
et...
As for your ancestors being bread eaters..... Why don't we have
teeth
like a cow or horse? Not to mention 2 stomachs to help digest grasses.
Surely over millions of years of evolution, the healthier veggies would
have
adapted much better and survived to mate more often. Looks to me like we
are
designed to be carnivores. Born to eat meat, and love every minute of it.
--
JK Sinrod
Sinrod Stained Glass Studios
www.sinrodstudios.com
Coney Island Memories
www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories

"revek" wrote in message
...
We evolved to eat in a certain type of environment, and our bodies are
still functioning as if they were in that envirnment-- we have not
changed in 100 thousand years. Yet our environment has. Modern
agriculture has had centuries to develop bigger sweeter grains, veggies
and fruits. Not natural at all. Common sense tells us to cut back on
these unnaturally high carb foods for more natural balance.

No, we actually evolved from eating fruits - so, these evil fruits are
actually our most natural food. If you had been alive back then, we would
have stayed on the all fruit diet during all our evolution. Not that I
would eat only fruits, our brain is too energy hungry for that now. Then, we
evolved into *omnivores*. At no point in our history did we (d?)evolve into
carnivores. The only time in history when we might have switched to a full
meat based diet was during the ice age, and that was pure adaptation to the
lack of anything else. That's the key evolutionnary advantage of being an
omnivore, you can switch to whatever is near at hand.
So, what's your diet? No fruits, no cereals, no veggies? I mean, by your
logic all these things are evil modern stuff we didn't eat during the Ice
Age. That sounds like the so-called neanderthal diet to me, which is so lame
that it doesn't even follow a realistic diet of that time (an all meat diet
needs to be heavier in fat and offal than muscles, because that's where many
of the vitamins and micro-nutriments are - in all pack hunters, the liver,
intestine and brain are the parts the leader gets).
Anyway, the only natural thing to human beings is to be unnatural -
everything about our culture is 100% unnatural. Or do you long for that time
when we still lived naked in the wild with half the brain we have now and no
culture?
Common sense tells me that the neanderthal diet is as stupid for an omnivore
as the vegetarian one. I can understand moderated low carbers, but yours is
a completely extremist view of things...

Lictor wrote:
Jean Staffen wrote:

And how is eating like our ancestors ate an unhealthy diet?

Which ancestors are you talking about? Mine used to eat 1-1.5kg of bread a
day. Unless you're not of European descent or your ancestors happened to be
the lucky few in the nobility (in which case they added a lot of meat to
their bread), I doubt your ancestors where eating anything different. Unless
you're speaking of ancestors from even further ago? Like before the
invention of agriculture.

Exactly. Agriculture was invented no more than 20,000 years ago.
The most common estimation in recent books is 8000BCE half that
long ago.

Twenty thousand years is 1000 generations. Not long enough to have
a major evolutionary impact. Humans may be evolved to eat agricultural
foods in a million years, but humans are not evolved for it now.

No matter that poor people in the past had no choice but to eat bread,
humans are not evolved to eat grass. Even in the areas that have been
eating grain the longest, diabetes from a lifelong diet containing
much grain is still common. There are populations who did not eat
grain as recently as a century ago and their diabetes rates can reach
80%.

If so, it's hard to say if they were eating
healthy. Dying at 18-25 on average doesn't leave much time for unhealthy
food to kill you. I bet you would survive that long on a mayonnaise on white
bread diet...

Death and health were not well correlated many thousands of years
ago. Violence and infection are both common causes of death that
had little to do with diet. So life expectancy is a poor measure
of health.

Ask a paleontologist about ancient skeletons and what their condition
says about their general health. Skeletons before the invention of
agriculte often have full sets of teeth yet the mummies of bread
eating Egyptian mummies almost all have badly rotted teeth. Old
skeletons are often tall, mummies are rarely over 5 feet tell. The
list goes on. In many ways humans were more healthy before
agriculture was invented, so humans died other ways.

In ,
Lictor coded for transmition to space:
"revek" wrote in message
...
We evolved to eat in a certain type of environment, and our bodies
are still functioning as if they were in that envirnment-- we have
not changed in 100 thousand years. Yet our environment has. Modern
agriculture has had centuries to develop bigger sweeter grains,
veggies and fruits. Not natural at all. Common sense tells us to
cut back on these unnaturally high carb foods for more natural
balance.

No, we actually evolved from eating fruits - so, these evil fruits
are
actually our most natural food.

I'm talking about actual homo sapiens-- not offshoots or different
species entirely.

If you had been alive back then, we
would have stayed on the all fruit diet during all our evolution.

Modern humans evolved in an ice age. There was precious little fruit,
and even if true, fruit back then was far less sugary than now.


Not that I would eat only fruits, our brain is too energy hungry for
that now. Then, we evolved into *omnivores*. At no point in our
history did we (d?)evolve into carnivores.

I never said so.


The only time in history
when we might have switched to a full meat based diet was during the
ice age,

When actual modern humans evolved.

and that was pure adaptation to the lack of anything else.

Assertion.

That's the key evolutionnary advantage of being an omnivore, you can
switch to whatever is near at hand.
So, what's your diet? No fruits, no cereals, no veggies?

No.

I mean, by
your logic all these things are evil modern stuff we didn't eat
during the Ice Age.

No. Don't tell me what my logic is duffus.

That sounds like the so-called neanderthal diet
to me, which is so lame that it doesn't even follow a realistic diet
of that time (an all meat diet needs to be heavier in fat and offal
than muscles, because that's where many of the vitamins and
micro-nutriments are - in all pack hunters, the liver, intestine and
brain are the parts the leader gets).
Anyway, the only natural thing to human beings is to be unnatural -
everything about our culture is 100% unnatural. Or do you long for
that time when we still lived naked in the wild with half the brain
we have now and no culture?

Hell no.

Common sense tells me that the neanderthal diet is as stupid for an
omnivore as the vegetarian one. I can understand moderated low
carbers, but yours is a completely extremist view of things...


You have no idea what the neandertal diet is if you believe it's an
all meat diet.

You have no idea what any lowcarb diet is if you believe any lowcarb
diet is an all meat diet.

You obviously have no idea of what my beliefs are if you toss out the
word extemist at the first opportunity with abosolutely nothing to
base it on.

Get educated before you spout off again.
--
revek
Counselling a diabetic to eat more carbs to spare their kidneys would
be like counselling someone to take crack to wake up so they could
avoid the side-effects of caffeine. --jpatti

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
om...
If so, it's hard to say if they were eating
healthy. Dying at 18-25 on average doesn't leave much time for unhealthy
food to kill you. I bet you would survive that long on a mayonnaise on
white
bread diet...

Death and health were not well correlated many thousands of years
ago. Violence and infection are both common causes of death that
had little to do with diet. So life expectancy is a poor measure
of health.

Agreed, but short life expectancy also mean that you can't draw conclusions
about how healthy their diets were. Diet related diseases are something that
have become visible thanks to the extended life expenctancy. If you killed
all westerners before they turn 30, you would cure diabete, heart diseases
and cancer at once - no diet change.

Ask a paleontologist about ancient skeletons and what their condition
says about their general health. Skeletons before the invention of
agriculte often have full sets of teeth yet the mummies of bread
eating Egyptian mummies almost all have badly rotted teeth.

Okay, sugar causes cavities, that's something we fix easily nowadays. Eating
food with high silica content (like most bread made with flour in old style
millstone) can also wear them out and cavities will become easier. Deficit
in fluor or calcim might also cause that. Also, cavities increase with age,
that's another factor to consider. Just considering the bread as the only
factor is biased.

Old
skeletons are often tall, mummies are rarely over 5 feet tell. The
list goes on. In many ways humans were more healthy before
agriculture was invented, so humans died other ways.

They died healthy because they died sooner. Again, kill everyone at 30 or
sooner, and everyone will be a lot healthier. You can't die from cancer or
diabete if you die from something else first...

"Lictor" wrote in message
...

They died healthy because they died sooner. Again, kill everyone at 30 or
sooner, and everyone will be a lot healthier. You can't die from cancer or
diabete if you die from something else first...



If they were healthy, why do you think they died at 30?

Are these outside-of-logic arguments typical in France?

(The answer is yes.)